Christian Approach Analysis

Critical Thinking and the Christian Perspective:

A Response to Baird and Soden

by Wendy Dutton, Thomas Hart and Rebecca Patten

Patten College

In their article, "Cartesian Values and the Critical

Thinking Movement," Faculty Dialogue (Winter 1993), Dr. Forrest

Baird and Dr. Dale Soden critique the critical thinking movement

by suggesting that it is based on Descartes's paradigm. Unlike

educators who find the advocacy of critical thinking a worrisome

thing because it redefines the role of the educator as a

questioner who models thinking rather than as a lecturer who

prescribes knowledge, they raise questions about whether critical
thinking is a viable enterprise for faculty who hope to integrate

faith and learning in the classroom. As Christian educators,

however, we find this to be a disturbing proposition. Certainly,

there is plenty of room for reexamination of critical thinking as

a discipline, but we believe critical thinking must be a part of

every Christian classroom if we are to maintain our integrity.

Baird and Soden state that in the critical thinking movement

"there appear to be underlying values that are too often

unstated" (p. 77). They go further to clearly state their

position: "these values are problematic for the Christian

scholar and teacher," (77) arguing that the movement is based on

the "Cartesian approach to epistemology" and "therefore the

methods reflect the weaknesses associated with Descartes." (77)

The authors proceed to do three things:

1) They examine the Cartesian paradigm, its history and

basic characteristics;

2) They maintain that the critical thinking movement is

based on this paradigm;

3) Finally, they raise questions about whether critical

thinking should be taught in the Christian College

classroom if the movement is indeed based on this

paradigm.

The issue we want to raise is whether the critical thinking

movement is indeed based on Descartes's paradigm. We suggest

that in relating the two movements, Baird and Soden have

misunderstood the purpose and intent of the critical thinking

movement.

First, it is inaccurate to address "critical theorists" as

if they all agreed. Indeed, there are a great many approaches,

systems, and even descriptions of what critical thinking is or

should attempt to accomplish.
As with the exploratory stages of

any new movement or method of teaching, the approaches are myriad

and indeed in the experimental stages. Some teachers use

critical thinking to study across disciplines - science,

economics, politics, art, history. (Descartes -- with his strong

leanings toward math and science - was indeed a forefather of

cross-discipline studies.) Some use an issue-oriented approach,

applying critical thinking to everything from gender to humor,

war and peace, even the media's treatment of certain issues. At

the root, critical thinking is used as a tool to examine our very

thinking processes - assumptions, stereotypes, biases, reasoning.

Critical thinking strives to point out that there are not only

two sides to every issue, but multiple sides. Critical thinkers

strive to break down preconceived thinking patterns and build a

more sturdy path to sound reasoning. Indeed, the most standard

criticism of critical thinking today is, "Don't we all do this

anyway?" In fact, we should. There is a "critical thinking

movement" in which many scholars are writing and
discussing

critical thinking, but the result of this discussion is a wide

variety of perspectives on the subject.

Second, neither the critical thinking movement, generally,

nor Richard Paul,* in particular, minimize history and culture in

the way nor to the extent to which Baird and Soden accuse. They

say, "critical theorists focus on the importance of eliminating

historical or cultural bias." They cite, for example, that

Richard Paul emphasizes the need for the critical thinker to

develop insight into "sociocentricity" which Soden cites as

Paul's definition that `the assumption that one's own social

group is inherently and self-evidently superior to all others.'"

(Baird and Soden; p. 81, Paul, What Every Person Needs, p. 586.)

Here we suggest that Baird and Soden have misinterpreted

Paul's concept of the need to be aware of one's historical and

cultural bias. Indeed, Paul hopes that the critical thinker will

be aware of and examine the culturally derived "mental links

which if they remain unexamined, unduly influence our thinking"

(Paul, A Critical Thinking Handbook, p. 39 cited by Soden, p.

81). This does not minimize history and culture, nor seek for a

paradigm which "transcends" both as Baird and Soden suggest.

The important factor, historically, culturally and

epistemologically is that, ala Socrates, the critical thinker

must be aware of the situation he is in (cultural, historical,

etc.). This does not mean that history is "thrown out," but

rather that the awareness of one's own situation, values, biases

and assumptions are necessary for the development of clear,

concise, and logical reasoning. If reasoning only follows given

a particular context of history, culture, values, beliefs, etc.,

then a reader who may be coming from a different perspective will

not agree with given conclusions. This does not mean that *

Richard W. Paul is widely recognized as a major leader in the

national and international critical thinking movements. He has

published over forty articles and five books on critical thinking

in the last five years. His views on critical thinking have been

canvassed in the New York Times, Education Week, The Chronicle of

Higher Education, American Teacher, Newsweek, and U.S. News and

World Report. Besides publishing extensively in the field, he

has organized two national and eight international conferences on

critical thinking. He has given invited lectures at many

universities and colleges, including Harvard, University of

Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Amsterdam, and the

Universities of Puerto Rico and Costa Rica, as well as workshops

and lectures on critical thinking in every region of the country.

history is not important - it in fact means that it is crucial.

Yet the critical thinker must be aware of his own history

and that of his audience. For example, if a 20th century

Biblical Scholar reads the Medieval Augustine from her own

historical and cultural context, she may misunderstand the

issues he addresses and what he is trying to say. This is not to

say that one can ever totally step outside of history or culture

as Soden accuses critical theorists of believing (see p. 81).

Richard Paul clearly explains this when he defines "cultural

assumptions" in What Every Person Needs, p. 546:

"Cultural assumption: Unassessed (often implicit) belief adopted by virtue of upbringing in a society. Raised in a society, we unconsciously take on its point of view, values, beliefs, and practices. At the root of each of these are many kinds of assumptions. Not knowing that we perceive, conceive,think, and experience within assumptions we have taken in, we take ourselves to be perceiving "things as they are", not
"things as they appear from a cultural assumption so that we might critically examine them is a crucial dimension of critical thinking." This definition does not call for one to "transcend time" or

"move outside of history" as Baird and Soden suggest (Baird and

Soden, p. 81). Rather, it calls for awareness of one's

historical and cultural assumptions.

Third, Baird and Soden state that the use of Descartes's

methodological doubt "wields considerable influence among

critical theorists" (Baird and Soden, p. 81). This is certainly

true on some level. Descartes relates to critical thinking not

so much in a philosophical way but through methodology. In

Meditations and Discourse he writes in the first person singular

in a dramatic situation, making the case that mental exercise is

an individual occupation.
He also insisted that philosophical

discourse must start from scratch. His system of doubt advocated

a rigorous examination of preconceptions. This is where critical

thinking picks up the Cartesian tradition - as surely as it

relies on the work of other great thinkers. According to Baird

and Soden, critical theorists "are deeply committed to a mode of

thinking that will bring one closer to certitude, objectivity,

and dispassionate analysis" (Soden, p. 82). Further, Soden

accuses critical thinking of aiming for "perfections of thought:"

thinking which is clear, precise, specific, accurate, relevant,

consistent, logical, deep, complete, significant, fair, and

adequate. (Soden, p. 82 quotes Paul, What Every Person Needs, p.

563). Soden argues that these terms suggest "a debt to Descartes

and his followers." We propose the question: has any serious

thinker ever aimed for any other kind of thinking?

More basically, the important issue of doubt should be

examined here. First of all, according to one of Richard Paul's

major works, Critical Thinking, What Every Person Needs
to

Survive, critical thinking has its roots in Socratic inquiry, the

notion that truth can best be sought after by means of dialogical

thinking ("thinking that involves a dialogue or extended exchange

between different points of view or frames of reference." This

kind of thinking allows one to challenge one's own individual

perceptions, suspend one's historical and cultural bias, and test

the strengths and weaknesses of differing points of view. Hence,

the critical thinking process is not necessarily or directly

based on Descartes's concept of doubt. For Paul, doubt is not a

central component of critical thinking. (see What Every Person

Needs, part I for a discussion of the historical roots and basic

components of critical thinking).

Baird and Soden relate this issue of doubt to the issue of

the existence of God. Maintaining that doubt is the key to

Descartes's philosophy (and therefore critical thinking),

they show that, according to Descartes, one must doubt God's

existence in order to prove he exists (Soden, p. 86).

Regardless of whether this was actually Descartes's problem,

we propose that it is not the problem of critical thinking

for critical thinking strongly asserts that one should have

strong reasons for why one believes in the existence of God.

Paul explains "faith" as "Faith is 1) unquestioning

belief in anything. 2) Confidence, trust, or reliance. A

critical thinker does not accept faith in the first sense,

for every belief is reached on the basis of some thinking,

which may or may not be justified. Even in religion one

believes in one religion rather than another, and in doing

so implies that there are good reasons for accepting one

rather than another. A Christian, for example, believes

that there are good reasons for not being an atheist, and

Christians often attempt to persuade non-Christians to

change their beliefs. In some sense, then, everyone has

confidence in the capacity of his or her own mind to judge

rightly on the basis of good reasons, and does not believe

simply on the basis of blind faith. ( What Every Person

Needs, p. 550.)

Again, critical thinking does not merely derive from doubt, but

plainly advocates that one should have reasons for belief.

Another issue we want to address is Baird and Soden's point

that critical thinking and Descartes emphasize the individual

whereas Christianity is based on community (Baird and Soden, p.

83). This point, according to Baird and Soden, most clearly

reflects the Cartesian paradigm. But Critical Thinking is not

merely based on a model that relies on the individual. For

instance, when Richard Paul argues for the individual's

responsibility within the business community, he implicitly

argues for a form of collaboration, not individuals working in

isolation:

When procedures are designed to bring the maximum degree of constructive critical thinking to bear on the problems of productions, virtually everyone has a potential contribution to make. The quality of the contribution will not be a function of the worker's position in the hierarchy (our italics) but the quality of the critical thinking he or she brings to bear on the problem. This, again, requires the paradigm shift that American businesses seem reluctant to make" (What Every Person Needs, 3rd ed.,p. 11)
Clearly, this style of critical thinking is not based on a

Cartesian paradigm of doubt, nor is it solely concerned with

requests for certainty. It asks rather for alternatives and

change in strategies that would keep up with morality, cultural

values, and the varying contexts of our environment and

technology--in short, individuals within a community who can be

self-critical before being certain of anything.

Thus, the key concept to critical thinking -- autonomous

thinking -- is the call for independent shared thinking (Baird

and Soden, p. 83). Intellectual autonomy is so important to

critical thinking that indeed, one could say it is central.

However, by over-emphasizing the Cartesian method, Baird and

Soden have, in our opinion, mistakenly characterized the critical

thinking movement. Descartes' emphasis on the self is a

distinctly different concept than Richard Paul's concept of

autonomous thinking. Whereas the self is Descartes' undoubtable

starting point for explaining existence, autonomous thinking

"entails a commitment to analyzing and evaluating beliefs on the

basis of reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to

question, to believe when it is rational to believe..." (What

Every Person Needs, p. 553). Moreover, the authors

mistakenly accept the notion that critical thinking "is simply a

method for enabling better analysis" (p.77). Claiming that

"weaknesses" exist (p. 79), they compare and associate the

Cartesian Paradigm with Richard Paul's style of critical thinking

by connecting it to certain strands of similarities and analogies

meant to hold together Descartes's approach to philosophy with

"our manner of doing natural science' (in Taylor, p. 81).

However, to accept that, we must believe that critical thinkers

behave like scientists and scientists only. In fact, Richard

Paul argues that if students study in a scientific discipline,

such as biology, then those biology students should strive to

think scientifically (p. , 1993). Content is not quite

"irrelevant," as the authors believe, but instead driven by its

own logic. It is by unpacking the logic of content that students

understand subject matter. Critical thinking is not a discreet

method or even a remaking of the so called "scientific method."

Rather, as Paul puts it himself, it is

a systematic (our italics) way to form and shape one's thinking. It functions purposefully and exactingly. It is thought that is disciplined, comprehensive, based on intellectual standards, and as a result, well reasoned...(and) distinguishable from other thinking because the thinker is thinking with the awareness of the systematic nature of high quality thought, and is continuously checking up on himself or herself, striving to improve the quality of thinking. As with any system, critical thinking is not just a random series of characteristics or components. All of its components--its elements, principles, standards, and values--form an integrated working network that can be applied effectively not only to academic learning, but to learning in every dimension of living (3rd ed., p. 22).

In order for the student to "shape" thinking, only analyzing or

following the "scientific method" won't be adequate. The student

must learn to take charge of his or her own thinking and must

practice being an autonomous thinker. In other words, autonomous

thinking is the process by which one evaluates and decides the

logic of what to believe.

The authors cite Richard Rorty's criticism of

"epistemological foundationalism" (p. 80), in order to illustrate

that certainty is a problematic notion, and we agree. But to use

another of Richard Rorty's contrastive studies between ways of

seeing critical theory (see Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, p.

73-78), the models or paradigms that Descartes and Richard Paul

reflect are again, worlds apart. Descartes strives to reach what

Rorty would call a "final vocabulary" (Rorty) and uses it to

analyze old descriptions with the aid of other, even older

descriptions. But Richard Paul knows that traditions can be

redescribed and that vocabularies are subject to change. He is

not worried about reaching a truth that he believes resides in

us already. Unlike Descartes' credo, "I think, therefore I am,"

which leads to a single affirmation of being, critical thinking

defines a systematic development and process of reasoning that is

driven by discipline and intellectual standards, not just any old

kind of "thinking." Education and society can be seen as divided

by traditions, not necessarily by indubitable, indisputable

academic disciplinarities. As Richard Paul points out:

"We must sooner or later abandon the traditional attempt to teach our fellow citizens what to think. Such efforts cannot prepare us for the real world we must concentrate instead on teaching ourselves to think for ourselves, critically, fairmindedly, and deeply. We have no choice, not in the long haul, not in the face of the irrepressible logic of accelerating change and increasing complexity" (p. 16, 1993, 3rd ed.). Furthermore, while Descartes believes that he has built-in

criteria that lets him recognize "the right final vocabulary,"

critical thinking means constantly asking to find an improved

final vocabulary over the one we have--one that is clearer, more

precise, more relevant, and so forth. Descartes is looking for

contradictions between propositions in order to make a

distinction that resolves an issue. For Descartes, rationality

means finding a grand convergence of theories. But in

substituting new vocabularies for old ones, Richard Paul is

ironically asking us to ask questions about our thinking rather

than to discover "facts." Critical thinking discards old

platitudes about itself--such as, "critical thinking is available

to anyone, who, at any given moment, wills to use it" (viii,

1993).

With critical thinking we would use appeals to reason, that,

as Rorty argues further, propose "distinctions between

contingently existing sets of practices or strategies" rather

than to offer some sort of "natural order of justification for

beliefs or desires," as Descartes does. (Rorty, in a footnote, p.

83).

Yet in their conclusion, Baird and Soden posit four major

objections to critical thinking in Christian classrooms, posing a

series of final questions:

Is a Cartesian emphasis on timeless truths consistent with a faith based on an historical text like the Bible? Is a desire for certainty consistent with a belief in the sinfulness of human beings? Are there really foundational propositions which can form the basis of thinking? Should our emphasis in the classroom be on developing autonomous learners apart from community? (88)

Again, here Soden and Baird have Descartes pegged, but not

critical thinking. Critical thinking is not concerned with

"timeless truths" and a "desire for certainty." Some of the

"foundational propositions" that critical thinking embrace are

the questioning of certainty* and the shattering of tired modes

of thinking. Ultimately the critical thinker will begin to ask,

"Can I really be sure of anything? Is there any such thing as

truth?" Such existential questions are indeed the very seeds of

faith and are critical for Christian students' development. "The

leap of faith" required by Christianity is actually critical

thinking at its best. But leaps of faith have nothing to do with

Descartes (see Kierkegaard). He was a certainty man, scrambling

for rocky footholds. Critical thinkers -- and often Christians

too -- stand on a brink and are not afraid to jump.

But it is their fourth question that troubles Soden and

Baird the most, and us as well. They state, "We believe that

knowing and thinking are best done in communities, not is

isolation." (88) By "communities" we can assume Soden and Baird

are referring to church communities, though they could also be

referring to academic communities. In the academic setting,

critical thinking is always contingent on community - since it

involves such tactics as

* Richard Paul Comments: I believe there is a timeless element to critical thinking in the area of the elements of thought and the standards of thought as well as in the abilities. For example, whenever people will try to figure things out for all time and eternity, they will try to do so for some purpose. They will of necessity pursue an answer to a question: they will of necessity use information. They will of necessity interpret that information in some way, making some assumptions. Their inferences will have implications and they will do so within some perspective. This I think is unavoidable and therefore timeless by the same token they must always strive for clarity, for accuracy, for precision appropriate to their purpose. They must strive to include only what is relevant to the issue. They must strive for depth, in so far as there is complexity in an issue, so far as there is broadmindedness, and so far that there are different ways to view the issue. So in some sense, then, there is a timeless element because as far as I can see, it is unintelligible to negate any of those, and it would not make any sense because teachers in the future might not ask any question or gather information or would be indifferent to the question.

collaborative learning, reaching a consensus, respecting other

people's points of views, etc.

Hence, in the church setting critical thinking should in no

way be seen as anything less than integral, but if autonomous

thinking is seen as a threat, the old misconception of Christians

as people more interested in Church doctrine than personal

beliefs is reinforced. For as surely as group thinking can be

enlightening, it can also be dangerous because it can reinforce

embattled, linear thinking that relies on indoctrination rather

than commitment. Critical thinking gives us the tools to examine

this.

Perhaps it is ironic that the authors worry about hidden

values in critical thinking which in fact do reflect rather

closely the values they claim for Christianity: Reliance on

Communities, Systematic Learning, Non-Foundational Knowledge, and

Historicity of Thought. Even more ironic is that by calling for

us to "reexamine," critical thinking, they advocate critical

thinking.

So is evaluating and analyzing one's own basis for belief

antithetical to the faith community? Shouldn't a community be

made up of individuals who have autonomous reasons for what they

believe? A community of individuals - by utilizing critical

thinking, by analyzing and evaluating their own positions and

considering other points of view - actually enhances community -

as individuals in a community of faith interact, they strengthen

each other in their faith.

For us, the importance of critical thinking is foundational

to Patten College (a Christian Liberal Arts College) as reflected

in our founding motto: "Study to show yourself approved unto

God... so that you can critically analyze, evaluate and apply the

Word of Truth (paraphrase ours)." (2 Timothy 2:15)